Aaron65’s recent review of the Austin A55 Cambridge prompted me to consider the practice of badge engineering and its actual commercial success, its presumed purpose.

A quick clarification of the terminology is in order – although we all know it as badge engineering, and I will use that term in this blog, I personally hate the term. It does not describe engineering, it describes a marketing tool used to fulfill a marketing objective and promote perceived differentiation within a company’s line-up. There may be some science behind it, but that doesn’t make it engineering.

To test this quickly and easily, we need an example of a product that was badge engineered to compare with a similar product that was not. North American examples close enough to each other for this purpose are hard to identify – Chevrolet to Pontiac to Buick may have been badge engineered but there was clear product differentiation there. A better example, from perhaps the most complex and prolific practitioner of the art – was Britain’s BMC.

BMC was created, of course, in 1952, by the merger of Austin and the Nuffield organization. Austin had essentially one brand – Austin, but the Nuffield Organization had 4 – Morris, competing directly with Austin, along with Riley, MG and Wolseley in ascending order of power and plushness. And, despite the merger, BMC maintained 2 separate dealer chains in the UK – one for Austin and one for the Nuffield brands. One reason was the power of the Austin and Nuffield dealer associations; although market share held by BMC, and the lack of significant foreign competition was a likely factor. I have to confess that whilst the profusion of BMC brands throughout the 1950s and 1960s give great scope and material for historical review, it is perplexing that it was allowed to continue for so long.

In 1958, BMC started a phased introduction of what we now know as the Farina series saloons, starting with the Wolseley 15/60 (1500cc, 60bhp), followed by the Riley 4/68 (4 cylinders, 68 bhp), the MG Magnette Mk3–also with 68bhp, the Austin Cambridge A55 Mk2 and the Morris Oxford Series V. Of these, only the Austin sat alone in a showroom, as the Nuffield brands were all sold together by franchisees with rights to four brands. Be aware also that this is referring essentially to the UK presentation of the cars – right through to the 1970s, BMC and BL were using marquee names and even model names differently in varying overseas markets, even those close to the UK. Check this out here.

So, we can compare the fate of the single Austin range against the 4 tier, badge engineered Morris – Riley – MG – Wolseley range.

For the series 1 cars, from 1958 to 1961, the Austin achieved 52% of the total sales of all of these Farina cars, the Morris 30% and other Nuffield brands 18%. So, Nuffield dealers, with the wider range, were behind.

For the series 2 cars, from 1961 to 1970, the position was reversed – the Nuffield brands achieved 52% of the total. For the full period covering the series 1 and 2, Austin achieved 49% with one car and the Nuffield brands, 51% with four, of which 34% percent was achieved by the Morris Oxford.

So, did badge engineering actually achieve anything here? It didn’t sell more cars (49/51 is a pretty close split) but 15% of the cars sold were higher price MG, Riley and Wolseley brands. Did this add sales or allow BMC to convert a Morris buyer into a Wolseley buyer? It would be fascinating to know if this were the case, which it should have been given professional selling techniques. It would be even more fascinating to know how much BMC made on a Wolseley versus a Morris or an Austin. We will never know that, not least, I suspect, because BMC never knew. And did this benefit outweigh the additional costs BMC incurred in creating three (!) premium brands to sell alongside the Morris? We’ll never know that either. Remember, there were some mechanical variations between the brands, with twin carburettor engines for example as well as all the separate marketing material and activities. Austin just supplied Cambridges.

Additionally, we should also be aware of customer loyalty to a particular dealer. Many buyers in the 1960s were more loyal to a brand and a dealer than we are today and would continue to trade with a dealer and take the brand he offered. BMC did not attempt any meaningful dealer chain clean up until the late 1960s, when many of the smaller discarded dealers took on Datsun, Toyota and Mazda franchises instead.

This leads to the next point to consider – in 1968, the Austin Maxi replaced the Austin Cambridge in Austin showrooms only, and combined UK sales of Maxis and all Farinas rose from 30284 in 1967 to 30784 – or looked at another way, the Maxi sold 23294 and the Farina lost 22794. The Maxi was actually supposed to replace all Farinas, with a stillborn saloon version to replace the Morris Oxford.

There is another example from BMC to consider–in its first full year, 1965, BMC sold 22234 Morris 1800 Landcrabs in the UK. In 1966, with an Austin 1800 also available, they sold 27536 and a similar quantity in 1967. But in 1968 it was back to 23591. It doesn’t seem like a great gain, does it?

My personal conclusion? Badge engineering did not add sales volume for BMC but it did enable higher prices to be obtained for 15% of the cars sold. So, not all negative then? Well no, but there was another way that was cheaper for manufacturer, easier for the consumer and simpler for the dealers. A tiered structure of model trims – Deluxe, Super, GT and 1600E. It worked pretty well for the Ford Cortina.

There are other similar examples within the BMC history book of course – perhaps the best being the ADO16. Initially sold as a Morris only, Austin, MG, Wolseley, Riley and Vanden Plas versions were all added within a couple of years, and the Mini came in a similar number of versions. There’s also the example of the Austin Healey Sprite and MG Midget, created for no reason other than to give Nuffield dealers an equivalent car to sell. BMC, later British Leyland didn’t finally abandon badge engineering until 1975, when the Austin, Morris and Wolseley 1800 and 2200 range was relaunched, after only 6 months, as the Princess 1800 and 2200. It came back briefly in 2001, when BL’s successor MG-Rover group–divested from BMW–created the MG ZR, ZS and ZT from the Rover 25, 45 and 75 respectively, and marketed them until the end of MG-Rover in 2005.

Many of the production and sales figures quoted were sourced at http://www.aronline.co.uk, an excellent site for Austin-Rover, BMC and BL history.

I always took “badge engineering” as an ironic pejorative. The only engineering having been done to the badge, and equally trivial things like grilles and trim. You’ll never hear a manufacturer use that term.

The Hudson Metropolitan was a literal badge engineering job. Same with Plymouth and Dodge Neons.

What a good idea for an article. An American counterpart would be interesting. I’m thinking of certain Mercurys like the ’62. Does mixing and matching front clips with bodies count? Quite a few US Mopars did that in the sixties.

Actually, the Neon was not badge engineering. If anything, it was the second time that a car manufacturer openly admitted (by the model name) that, despite being sold in two different dealerships, it was the exact same car. And other than the marque name, the cars were absolutely identical.

The first time was the Metropolitan: Sold as a Nash, a Hudson, and finally just as a Metropolitan after the former two marques disappeared.

The hatred against badge engineering was that the manufacturing company was actually trying to convince the buyer that the cars were different – because they changed the nameplate and (hopefully) the grille.

Indeed. “The word “brand” derives from the Old Norse “brandr” meaning “to burn” – recalling the practice of producers burning their mark (or brand) onto their products.” (Wikipedia). The brand said who made it.

There was a time when a Buick or an Olds was better built and better engineered than a Chevy, in a different plant by different people. Therefore really worth more money, not just as a status symbol. You’d be proud to own a Chrysler, you could see and feel it was a better car.

When they took a cheaper product and put a richer badge on it, a cynical cheat in the worst cases, people lost faith. Does anyone really think a Chrysler is a better car than a Dodge today? Does anybody care?

Remember the outrage when the general public realized GM divisions were swapping engines.

Re: Chrysler vs. Dodge. To Marchionne’s credit, he seems to recognize that car buyers aren’t fooled by minor differences in sheetmetal and trim, and he’s weeding out the twins as new models come online. I don’t think there’s going to be a Dodge version of the Chrysler 200 unveiled today in Detroit, for example.

That leaves the question of why there are so many brands in one showroom. Would the Nuffield dealers have done better if each brand only had one model, starting with a small Morris and working its way up to a big Vanden Plas (with a sports car-only MG brand somewhere in the middle)? It seems that Fiat-Chrysler is betting that they would have.

KiwiBryce

Posted January 14, 2014 at 11:55 PM

Nuffield included a tractor range and both Austin and Nuffield/Morris built trucks though that became Leyland in later years.

North American examples close enough to each other for this purpose are hard to identify – Chevrolet to Pontiac to Buick may have been badge engineered but there was clear product differentiation there.

I’m not sure just how much difference really defines “differentiation”. If you really look at an early 70s full size Pontiac, vs Buick, vs Olds, the only difference are the front end caps (grill, headlights and turn signals) and the taillights. Fenders, doors and roof are identical. GM divisions had their own engines for a while, but that broke down in the early 70s with the “scandal” of Olds being built with Chevy 350s, due to some supposed “shortage” of Olds 350s. GM solved that problem with a disclamer in their literature stating “GM autos are provided with engines from various GM divisions”

I have spoken to people who insist their Mercury Montego was a nicer/better handling/quieter car than a Ford Torino, and thus “worth” the price premium.

iirc, in the mid 70s, the Olds Cutlass was the best selling car in the country, in spite of the price premium above the Chevy/Pontiac/Buick versions of the same platform.

“…If you really look at an early 70s full size Pontiac, vs Buick, vs Olds, the only difference are the front end caps (grill, headlights and turn signals) and the taillights. Fenders, doors and roof are identical…”

I don’t think so. Roof, glass and inner structure are identical, all other sheetmetal was unique.

I think the sheetmetal on the sides of the ’70’s GM’s were somewhat different. My family had a ’72 Buick Estate Wagon and the doors had the Buick “swoosh” in them that the Chevy and Pontiac wagons didn’t. The hood was different too.

My Dad’s reasoning for buying the Buick was twofold, first he said that by the time you optioned out the Chevy to match the Buck (big-block engine, fancy interior) your price was the same and he said that Consumer Reports liked the reliability of the Buick engines better.

I wonder how much that did him as the Buck burned an exhaust valve at 85,000mi requiring an engine rebuild.

It was known, back in the day, that if you put enough options on it, a ’57 Chevy could cost more than an entry-level Cadillac.

I think the sheetmetal on the sides of the ’70′s GM’s were somewhat different.

Yup. You guys are right. I had to go back and refresh my failing memory of 40 years ago. Olds had a bit of flair at the bottom of the wheelwells, Buick a diagnal crease down the side. Not nearly the clones the 82 Celebrity/6000/Century/Ciera were.

Then there was the ultimate badge engineering: I was standing in the Ford dealer’s showroom in the mid 70s, looking at a Granada, which had a Monarch badge on one side.

MCT

Posted January 13, 2014 at 8:22 PM

While they may have shared some attributes earlier, the GM B-bodies were not all built off a common wheelbase until the 1977 downsizing. Olds and Buick shared the same wheelbases at least as far back as the ’50s, but Pontiac had its own until 1972, and Chevrolet until 1976. Sharing of engines among GM divisions also didn’t become widespread until the mid/late ’70s.

The trend for cars sold by Big Three brands to become more and more alike happened on different timelines for different manufacturers and differrent product lines. At GM it seemed to really start with the X-bodies in the early ’70s (larger GM vehicles still had *some* differentiation at that point) and spread from there.

Geeber

Posted January 14, 2014 at 8:08 AM

GM had held out the longest in maintaining the differences between the brands – particularly with the full-size cars. The divisions also marketed themselves as distinct car makers, with various catchy phrases like “Wide Track” and “Rocket V-8” to differentiate themselves from the other GM divisions, as well as the Ford and Chrysler competition.

I remember reading in DeLorean’s book that, when he took over Chevrolet in the late 1960s, he found that many dealers considered Pontiac, not Ford or Plymouth, to be their toughest competitor.

That is why it was such a shock when, in 1977, we found out that GM had been installing Chevrolet V-8s in Oldsmobile Delta 88s. People buying a big Oldsmobile expected it to have an Oldsmobile engine.

BMC went beyond the Farina models what about the Wolseley 6/80 Morris 6 of the early 50s, Ive driven an Austin Minor panelvan, they rebadged everything they could with only minor mechanical differences usually camshaft and twin carbs for some extra performance on the upmarket versions.

A lot of” badge engineering” was down to the class system and snobbery.Austin and Morris for the oiks and Wolsley and Riley for the more well to do and Vanden Plas for the really posh.A similar thing went on at Rootes/Chrysler and GM.

Rootes were the masters they even created another model specifically to double their import quota here Ive shot one for the cohort the Humber80 basicly a Hillman Minx with Singer hubcaps and an extra layer of padding on the seats

Badge engineering – Durant and Sloan’s industry-defining product strategy from the other end of the telescope. The gradual merging of what were originally distinct, stratified brands and vehicles seems inevitable in retrospect.

The disastrous RR 4 litre in the VdP was the only model with a real ‘engineering’ difference. Even the Magnette was, well, an Austin.

I remember reading that the Challenger was made slightly longer than the Barracuda only so the dealers could claim there was a difference between them.

It was Sloanian taken to the nth degree, GMs idea was a multiplicity of models using as many common parts as possible and if you understand the GM part numbering system from the 30s you can see how its done suspension bushings interchange thruout the lineup for instance ignition switches are universal all sorts of cost savings were in place and that kept going well into the 70s but until the internet nobody seemed to know even now the trick of turning one car into many is kept quiet where it comes unglued is places where everything was available somehow and my Dad got Vauxhall Chevettes and Isuzu-Holden (that’s how they were badged)Geminis side by side in the showroom and it was blatantly obvious they were the same car, and the Chevrolet Statesmans full Chevy powertrain no Holden parts visible except the outside was obviously a HQ Holden Statesman but they were only sold at Vauxhall or Chevrolet dealers no Holden dealers could get them my Dads outfit had been Chevrolet since 1926 so they got some to sell 350/350/ with 12bolt rear ends in a Holden body they sold well it wasn’t so heavy and floaty as the US Caprice we got that too and more suited the the rural roads.
The trick is don’t put them all on the same local market or we can see thru your trick

This is a very interesting topic, a subject that is often handled too casually. I can speak with more authority on American cars, but there seem to be 4 classes:
1. True badge engineering like the Metropolitan and the Neon. Exact same car, different badges only, and possibly other bolt-on differences like grilles and taillights. This would be a class 1a, and would include the Fairmont/Zephyr, the Aspen/Volare or the Mopar R body cars (excluding the New Yorker).
2. Identical mechanicals, differing sheetmetal: I’m thinking of most cars built by Chrysler (The E body Barracuda and Challenger were quite different in appearance, if not in effect) and many of GM’s efforts since the 80s. Also the 1957-58 Studebaker and Packard.
3. Identical (or nearly identical) bodies, differing mechanicals: I am thinking of the 49-51 Mercury and Lincoln and several GM cars from that era as well (like the Chevy and Pontiac fastback sedans from the late 40s). This is the smallest category. The 1955-57 Nash and Hudson might slot in here, but the sheetmetal differences could arguably place these cars into slot 4.
4. Cars that share inner structures but have different sheetmetal and different mechanicals. This was the classic GM method until well into the 1970s (and occasionally beyond).

Perhaps we need to assemble a badge-engineering convention to hammer out the rules on what is and what is not “badge engineering”. The world of automotive writing (and humanity as a whole) would be in our debt.

In the ’60s and early ’70s, Chrysler seemed to like playing around with different wheelbases or different sheetmetal on otherwise similar cars, in cases where you wouldn’t necessarily expect the models in question to have those differences. This rarely seemed to result in two cars that looked different enough or sold well enough to make it worth the cost and effort. The only possible exception that comes to mind is the Duster.

No. 2 was very common in Japan from the ’70s through the mid-90s. Toyota was the leader in that sort of thing, followed by Nissan, although Mitsubishi, Honda, and Mazda eventually got in on it to varying degrees.

There, unlike in the U.K. or here, where badge engineering was often used to try to hold onto residual brand loyalty to a preexisting brand that had changed hands or been absorbed into a bigger entity, manufacturers would set up additional dealer networks specifically to sell multiple variations on existing products.

Generally, what they’d do would be to have certain models that were really unique bolstered by others that weren’t. For example, in the ’80s, Honda’s Verno chain sold a slightly restyled Civic sedan called the Honda Ballade. The Ballade differed very little in equipment, price, or looks from the four-door Civic sold by Honda dealers, but Verno dealers also had the Ballade Sports CR-X, which Honda dealers didn’t.

I always thought that the 1970-74 Dodge and Plymouth E-bodies looked so much alike, that Chrysler basically wasted time and money giving both cars different sheet metal. The differences were lost on most people.

> 4. Cars that share inner structures but have different sheetmetal and different mechanicals. This was the classic GM method until well into the 1970s (and occasionally beyond).

It sounds like this describes a common “platform” that various vehicles can be built from, which is common practice to share various costs and allow the vehicles to easily be assembled in the same factory.

It would probably be a shorter list to name modern vehicles which have a unique platform that is not shared. Most of them would be specialty performance or off-road vehicles, such as the Corvette, Viper, Wrangler.

Probably a bit less than that – eg in JP’s no. 4 you could swap doors but the outer skin would not match, whereas platform sharing you have different inner structure (top hat) above the floorpan, eg VW Golf and Audi TT.

Badge engineering worked for BMC in as much as their sales would have been poorer without it. If you wanted to buy a Riley in 1959 your choice was the Riley Farina saloon or the One-Point-Five, which was a twin carb, badge-engineered Wolsley 1500 ( itself a re-bodied re-engined Morris Minor). Without these models, a Riley buyer would have had to buy a Rootes product (Sunbeam Rapier maybe) or even an import – certainly not an Austin or Morris. Tweaking a common product was cheaper than losing sales, and much cheaper than developing proper Rileys and MGs. The only problem was that the Farina was based on Austin design principles, which were inferior to Morris.

Along the same lines, when Chrysler dropped the Plymouth Voyager, I think it lost a lot of the Voyager’s sales and never got them back. A half-hearted attempt to market a Chrysler-badged Voyager for a few years after that fell flat, possibly because it was only available in the SWB version (because the Chrysler brand already had the Town & Country as an LWB). In hindsight, I think Chrysler may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater; they might have been better off abandoning any attempt to keep Plymouth as a full-line brand but allowing it to continue with one or two models, including the Voyager, instead of just axing the whole brand. That may beg the question, “why do you need the Voyager when the Caravan is basically the exact same vehicle?”, but for whatever reason the Voyager’s presence generated sales that didn’t necessarily all gravitate to the Caravan once the Voyager was gone.

At that time, the corporation still maintained two distinct dealer networks – Dodge and Chrysler-Plymouth. In many small towns, there was only one type of dealer, and many people were reluctant to travel far to buy a new car. Perhaps the corporation should have first consolidated the entire dealer network (which is has basically done at this point), and THEN dropped Plymouth. That way, people used to buying Plymouths could have looked at Dodges in the same showroom when they went to buy a new car.

My point before Chev buyers wouldn’t buy Holdens rebadge and repower it they bought plenty,
Several million SouthAfricans have fallen for the same trick they’ve been getting Chevrolet powered Holdens since 1966 they aren’t complaining , they got the better deal

When GM killed the dated and tired brands, sales in general of cars went down because of the recession.

Hobbyists and GM loyalists still mourn the badge jobs they had become, but smart buyers couldnt care less. Explaining the differences between late 90’s Intrique, Grand Prix, Lumina, and Regal was pointless. Only trim was different, and GM loyalists liked memorizing the differences, but why bother anymore?

Some former GM customers went elsewhere because they wanted quality cars, not because the couldn’t get an Olds hood ornament.

Some of my parents and their peers moved from Olds to Buick or Chevy seemlessly, since they wanted GM or American made. No way would a pure “Olds man” buy an import.

One other thing I say to GM ‘brand mourners’. What is it about bankruptcy that is not understood? They lost $ and nearly died, trying to keep all the ‘good old brands’ alive.

Down here in NZ, we were exposed to Ford-Mazda badge-“engineering” for the 80s and 90s with the Ford Festiva/Mazda 121, Ford Laser/Mazda 323, Ford Telstar/Mazda 626. Sometimes they made a decent effort to differentiate with different panels, sometimes they just glued the different badge on.

Everyone knew they were the same cars, and what you bought depended on things like which dealer was closer, and which one seemed nicer (eg my sister’s former 1987 Mazda 323 GT upholstery was considerably nicer than the equivalent Laser TX3).

Of course that’s just two models targetting decent-sized market sectors; whereas BMC used far too many models to micro-target micro-sectors of the market. NZ’s relationship with the mother country UK meant we got all of the BMC variations here too, as well as the locally developed additions (NZ’s Humber 80, Oz’s Austin Lancer).

Ah yes, the famed Arna: a modern and reliable Nissan engine inside a a finely designed Italian hatchback. Or at least that’s what was planned…sadly the minute-keeper had enjoyed too much Sake and Lambrusco and accidentally transposed the roles of the two manufacturers… I may have made that up.

Honda Orthia wagon panel parts and glass is in the Ford Mazda 626 catalogue, Honda couldn’t justify the tooling for a Civic wagon so they bought one already prepared and my BIL was a panel rep at Ford/Mazda, Its amazing what the parts catalogue will tell you.

Nah, not the Orthia, it has nothing in common with any Ford or Mazda. It’s a Civic wagon and sits on the gen6 Civic platform. All panels/mechanicals etc are Honda, and although the front end is unique, it’s fully interchangeable with the Civic sedan front clip (as many JDM fans have done).

Your BIL was probably meaning the Mazda Familia wagon (not the gen5 BF series Laser/323 one we got) which has been a rebadged Nissan Wingroad since 1995. Mazda couldn’t justify a wagon version of the gen6 BG 323 in 1989, so continued selling the gen5 wagon until 1994 when it was cancelled. Following its cancellation, it was replaced in Japan by a rebadged Wingroad, and that arrangement continues to this day. Pic below shows the Y10, Y11 and Y12 Wingroads on the right, and the Mazda-badged version on the left.

The same arrangement has seen Nissan rebadging the Mazda Bongo as the Nissan Vanette for many years too. (And of course the Bongo has also been rebadged as a Mitsubishi Delica van too).

My BIL is very unlikely to be confused he has been in the panel replacement game longer than youve been alive I know what Wiki says I looked however the Orthia was Mazda based for Two generations Wiki doesnt even know about that, does it, even down to the 4WD versions still carrying dual pump decals on the rear doors courtesy Mazda. The Mazda based Nissans get their new panels from the same source as Orthias in NZ JohnAndrew Ford/Mazda.

Scott McPherson (aka NZ Skyliner)

Posted June 19, 2014 at 5:32 PM

I rang John Andrew’s parts department today out of curiosity, and your BIL has been pulling your leg something shocking! The Honda Orthia is not remotely related to any Mazda product and John Andrew don’t supply panels for it. It’s a Civic wagon, with Civic floorpan, structure and running gear, and uses Civic-based panels; Honda only ever built one generation of Orthia, not three. The 4wd system in it is Honda’s own from the CR-V (which is also Civic-based, albeit loosely).

You should know that their models are based on Hondas and Toyotas, but they do such a great job styling them that few really know it.

Just the other day, someone expressed shock to me that the Acura MDX was really just a Honda CRV in drag. Same for the Lexus RX-350 and the Toyota Highlander.

Chrysler managed it in the ’60’s and ’70’s because their cars looked enough different from one another that people either didn’t realize it or just purchased the car that appealed to them. Chryslers were obviously bigger than Dodges or Plymouths. Remember the LH sedans? Chrysler did an excellent job making the Dodge, Eagle and Chrysler versions look different.

It was GM who made the mistake of making their cars look so much alike that the press had to highlight it.

Well, in the case of Acura and Lexus (until fairly recently in the latter case), the cars sold here under those brands WERE Hondas and Toyotas and were sold as such in other markets. (Toyota did eventually introduce the Lexus brand in Japan, but not until 2004-2005.) Other than badges, the main distinction was that the JDM cars were sometimes offered in trim levels or with engines/equipment that wasn’t exported. For instance, the 1992-2001 Lexus SC was the third-generation Toyota Soarer in Japan and offered the 2.5-liter 1JZ six as well as the 2JZ 3-liter and 4.0-liter V-8 sold here, with optional active suspension, air suspension, digital instruments, and satnav. The Lexus ES300 was sold in Japan as the Toyota Windom, the GS as the Aristo, and the first IS as the Altezza.

Yeah though that was announced as collaboration I have a Singer Gazelle owners manual nowhere in it does it tell you its a Hillman Minx in disguise it tells you to use genuine Singer parts 2 offices listed for the US Long Island NY and West Pico blvd Cal.

In the 70s around the corner from where I grew up, there was a household with 2 Singer Vogue-types always parked out front. Both saloons, one had a sharper roofline than the other. Always a nice pair to drive past.

It was interesting to read about how BMC’s dealer networks worked, a subject I didn’t really know much about. What went on with Austin and Morris was the pursest form of badge engineering — a very similar car with very similar equipment at a very similar price point. In North America, Plymouth and Dodge were like this during the 1980s and 1990s. Chevrolet/GMC trucks and the badge-engineered Nashes and Hudsons of the ’50s are other North American examples.

Much more common is the situation with the other Nuffield brands, where the badge-engineered models are at different price points, with certain models more expensive/prestigious than others. This was the case in North America with many Ford and Mercury models, or Dodge and Chrysler models, since at least the 1970s.

and the badge-engineered Nashes and Hudsons of the ’50s are other North American examples.

Odd thing about the Hudsons. Although they were retrimmed Nashs from 54 on, the Hornet was still available with the old Hudson 308 into 56. Nash even put some money into the 308: revised head with better cooling, larger head bolts to improve head gasket retention, revised combustion chamber to improve breathing, revised and stronger crank with dry clutch replacing the Hudson wet clutch, and a much beefier trans input shaft to cure a long standing issue with the shaft twisting. They even switched the 308 to hydraulic lifters, because it was so hard to get at the lifters for adjustment in the Nash body.

After all that work on the 308, it was only offered in the Hudson, while the Nash carried on with it’s own six.

It depends on which Hudsons and Nashes we are talking about. The 1955-56 Ramblers are the purest definition of badge engineering – AMC sold the same exact car as a Hudson or a Nash. The only difference was the badge on the front grille.

I wouldn’t say that the full-size 1955-57 Hudsons and Nashes fall into the category of badge-engineered. They shared the Nash body, but it was heavily restyled for the Hudson (and not necessarily for the better after 1955), and the engines and interior bits were not necessarily identical.

The 1955-56 Ramblers are the purest definition of badge engineering – AMC sold the same exact car as a Hudson or a Nash. The only difference was the badge on the front grille.

True, but then, George Romney ended up establishing Rambler as a stand alone brand, and dropping Nash and Hudson, so starting out introducing Rambler as a suppliment to Nash and Hudson was a reasonable way to introduce people to the Rambler name. That company went through an armload of name changes, from Rambler, to Jeffry, to Nash, then back to Rambler, then AMC

When Jim Nance reintroduced the Clipper name as a low priced Packard, his intention was to evenually break Clipper off as a second brand so it would not devalue the Packard brand. Didn’t work though. When the Packard name was deleted from Clippers in 56, customers and dealers complained, so the Packard badges went back on, and badges were mailed to dealers for installation on cars in stock.

I actually think Toyota/Lexus is the 21st century American version of this. Just as a Wolseley or Riley was considered higher class in ’50’s Britain, mostly based on those brands’ 1920’s or’30’s legacy, the same is true in the US with the legacy of the LS400 from the early ’90’s. And somehow that has lived on 25 years later with the ES300 versus the Camry.

When GM introduced the Vectra into NZ they actually brough over a shipment of Vauxhalls my brother at the time was driving a car transporter and saw a Schofields Holden van on the wharf with 2 guys changing the grilles from Vauxhall to Holden, Aussie at the time was still suffering Camiras but they were so hard to sell here GMNZ tried something else. True badge engineering/subterfuge if you like.

Holden didn’t even bother changing the grille on the ’95-’98 Vectra – they retained the Vauxhall grille complete with its chrome ‘V’ for Vauxhall. The Vauxhall badge in the center of the V was swapped out for the Holden badge. Folks who didn’t know that the Vectra was actually a Vauxhall wouldn’t have realised that the chrome V was for Vauxhall, it would just look like a grille design!

The Vauxhall grille only vanished in 1998 because Holden Australia began assembling and selling the Vectra and ours started coming from Australia instead of Europe.

Ford and GM, and to a lesser extent Chrysler, played the badge engineering game extensively in Canada for a good 25 years. They did this because it made sense in a market one-tenth the size of the American market and with a substantially different dealer structure.

From about 1950 Pontiacs sold in Canada carried Pontiac sheet metal and interiors but were 100 percent Chevrolet underneath. The model names were different too, e.g., Parisienne in place of Bonneville. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Parisienne

As manufacturers rationalize their production globally, it’s inevitable that badge engineering will continue. British Vauxhalls are today German Opels — or at least those that aren’t made in Korea as Daewoos are. I think most Chevrolet-branded cars sold in Europe are Daewoos, and I suspect some Holdens may share that origin too.

Tangential, but the other side of the coin: one of my latest pet peeves is the internet horde referring to platform-shared cars as ‘rebadges’ of eachother. Sharing a platform does not mean the cars are the same with different badges.

The most obvious badge-engineered cars ever — strangely absent from this discussion — are the Jags / Daimlers since the 60s, as well as the Rolls / Bentleys from the ’40s to the late ’90s. Save for a few models (e.g. E-type Jag, Bentley Continental, Rolls Camargue…), these were true “type 1” badge-engineered cars.

Peugeot’s control of Citroen and Chrysler Europe also produced clones. Look at the Peugeot 104 Z, the Citroen LNA and the Talbot Samba from the side. Sure, the Citroen could be ordered with a very non-Peugeot flat-twin, but other than that, it’s the same car.

Sometimes, branding decisions are called for and make a lot of sense. The Audi 50, while a great car, would never have been so widespread had not VW decided to re-badge it as the Polo and stop cheapening Audi’s image.